T.S.A. Agents Refuse to Work During Shutdown, Raising Fears of Airport Turmoil | Hacker News Reader

T.S.A. Agents Refuse to Work During Shutdown, Raising Fears of Airport Turmoil

nytimes.com

8 pointssmacktoward36 comments

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, airports became completely different places. Young people have no idea what an airport used to be like. They'll never know what it's like to travel without having to first submit to a humiliating security check. They'll never know what it was like to say goodbye to your friends and family at the gate, rather than at the front doors of the airport, or to greet them at the gate when they arrived.

...

To earn a living groping us, taking body scanner photos of us that can see through our clothes, patting-down our wives and children. The government shutdown is making it hard for the TSA to earn a living detaining us.

They're the victims.

http://www.stationarywaves.com/2019/01/topsy-turvy.html

But isn't this a problem with the actual TSA and its policies instead of the workers who just follow them? These are still real people who have to rely on their paychecks to live.

You surely aren't suggesting that these employees have no say in which job they get, right? I mean, I personally don't have a job that requires me to grope and/or detain people. I personally wouldn't seek such a job. That raises the question: what kind of person would choose that job over any other, especially when government shutdowns and foregone wages are a known risk of employment?

Now I am unsure of what field you are in, but not everybody has the same flexibility in terms of job availability. I agree with you in saying that I would never choose such a job but when it may be one of the few options available, with good pay, how could you say no? If you have a family to provide for, then you need to do it. What if these workers don't agree with the policies and joined the TSA to try and change it for the better? You are talking down to an entire workforce as if they all are actively behind its policies and actions.

You can see how your argument might elicit a counterargument consistent with Godwin's law, right?

I am not familiar. From a quick search it seems like the longer a discussion happens, the probability increase. Other than just commenting again, I do not see how this relates to the discussion at all.

OK. Can you give some examples of jobs with good pay that you think should be turned down? Even if you have a family to provide for?

I can't think of any job in the US currently that would fall under that category. If you don't like the company, you have every right to quit, but if you do not have mobility like that, then some people just tend to endure it.

Can we at least agree that "just tend to" is much different from "has no ethical obligation to"?

People are allowed to leave a company they do not morally stand beside. I never said they couldn't. I am saying do not blame the people who live paycheck to paycheck and who can't skip a single paycheck to go job hunting for the company's misdeeds. Not everyone has the financial security to disrupt their career.

How many TSA employees do you think this describes? 5%? 10%? 85%?

What about sex trafficker, producer of child pornography, hit person, burglar (as an employee - not self-employed)?

Illegal "jobs" do not have any merit in this argument, you should know that.

Of course they do. Moral judgements can be made independently of legal ones. That's exactly the point of this discussion.

Just so I understand you right, you're saying it's okay to violate people's rights, so long as the pay is good, your family really needs the money, and you hold some kind of internal objection to your own work?

I never said that anywhere in my statement above, if it was implied, please tell me where. I am saying people can disagree with the policies of their employer and still stay at their job. Sometimes this forced through financial, geographic, maybe social reason. If the worker is actively disregarding human rights, then that is a single issue with that worker. If you think it is TSA enacting these human rights violations, then blame them, not the people just following what their bosses say.

Let's suppose I want to "blame them [the TSA]." Okay, who should I be complaining about? Which TSA employees is it okay to hold responsible for forcing my daughter to have a nude photo of herself taken?

Supposing that every person today who applies for a job today with the TSA knows about the body scanners and the pat-downs and the unexplained detentions, to what extent are new job applicants morally blameworthy for applying for a job that they already know involves all of these things?

At best, your argument covers people who applied for jobs with the TSA before anyone knew what the TSA was going to be doing at airports, and who have over the course of 18 years been unable to find work elsewhere. What share of TSA employees do you suppose that is? What's your guess?

The TSA is a federal agency so there are plenty of proper channels to complain through. My argument covers anybody that doesn't actively revel in these terrible things that the TSA does. There are TSA employees who never have to do or deal with these types of things. I can't give you a number, I don't even want to guess because that would be silly. You can complain to the woman/man at the desk who takes your ID all day long, but if they have never kept up with the latest TSA news then they are just showing up for a paycheck. I am saying it is extremely unfair to lump everybody into one category just because they work at a particular company/agency that you actively dislike. You don't know their thought process.

All 51,000 agents should stay home for one week and bring the country to a grinding halt.

That would result in some progress from Congress.

> and bring the country to a grinding halt.

And if it didn't come to a grinding halt? They risk demonstrating how worthless their jobs are.

If their jobs are indeed worthless, then it's a win, in that we can save tax-payer dollars for worthless jobs.

Refusal to work as a federal employee, especially if you're in a national security position, might be risky. PATCO comes to mind. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Con...

PATCO was a general strike, which was illegal.

If every worker collectively decides to call in sick, would they be faced with the same retaliation?

The irony... Trump closes govt because of national security concerns (border wall/terrorism)... TSA agents are pretty high on the list of jobs that protect us from terrorism, and I guarantee more important than a damn border wall.

> high on the list of jobs that protect us from terrorism

I'm not certain your statement is accurate. The TSA has itself demonstrated, time and time again, that their accuracy and precision leave much to be desired. If anything, they've been lucky. Terrorism, thankfully, is quite rare.

If anything, I hope the shutdown helps push airports and airlines to seek control of their infrastructure (and, with luck, this administration will help diminish the power of the executive branch in the future).

Police officers stop criminals... they also have major issues with brutality/etc...and have a bad track record...something like 4000 people were shot by police last year...

I wouldn't say we should get rid of police or that they don't provide a service because of those issues...just that they need to reform/change/fix those issues. Not sure, how they do that...

My point is the TSA, while it often does some shitty/shady stuff in the name of 'security'... I don't think you could say they have never thwarted terrorist attacks, or that we as a nation could flourish without them at all.

I don't really have statistics on TSA/etc... but I think making sure people don't have guns on planes is a bit more important than building a wall that can be scaled via ladder, or tunneled under. But it's just ironic to me that by not getting his wall, the TSA is now basically on strike.

Plenty of people see it as the Democrats in Congress who are holding things up. (After all, there is universal agreement that border security is important. Also, many prominent Democrats have pledged support for physical barriers in the recent past.)

I tend to agree with Cher, which doesn't happen often. She says that Democrats can be seen as heroes if they compromise on the wall to re-open the government. (But if they do not do this, Cher believes the Democrats will ultimately suffer for the fallout.) Time may tell if she is right or not.

>Plenty of people see it as the Democrats in Congress who are holding things up.

Yes, we call those people Republicans.

That's fair.

Both sides usually blame each other. During the Obama administration, there was a government shutdown as well. Democrats blamed the Republican congress, Republicans blamed Obama and the Democrats.

It really does (or should) take cooperation when things are as evenly distributed as they are. I only wish there were incentives for the politicians to work faster.

I agree, but I'd take work together to find common ground first over work faster. I think in some respects when they work faster or in complete agreement we get things passed that are not in the best interest of the american people/values (Patriot act comes to mind).

Any dissent from within gets the dissenter grouped with the opposition?

The 116th congress is shaping up to be another round of Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I do think it's a safe bet that anyone who blames the blue team for everything will tend to be from the red team, yes. That is, unfortunately, the way American politics works.

Right... Trump's exact words: Yes, if we don't get what we want... I will shutdown the government. I am proud to shutdown the government for border security. I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I won't blame you for it. I will take the mantle. I will shut it down.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t7bYWM9zAw

Not his exact words if you watch the video you sourced. Close but missing some key phrases in there that provide context.

What do you think was omitted that would change that quote?

You're more than welcome to make modifications to my quote that you feel would change the context and I'll even update my comment. It's mostly word for word but I did it pretty fast and just with two listens so it's not 100%, but as close as I felt it needed to be too relay his message.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com